Clicca qui per scaricare

Regulation and un-regulation of LGBT reproductive and parenting rights: the case of Italy and Belgium
Titolo Rivista: SALUTE E SOCIETÀ 
Autori/Curatori: Alice Sophie Sarcinelli 
Anno di pubblicazione:  2018 Fascicolo: Lingua: Inglese 
Numero pagine:  16 P. 90-105 Dimensione file:  93 KB
DOI:  10.3280/SES2018-002007
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più:  clicca qui   qui 


The development of Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ARTs) has led to new forms of child production, family reproduction and kinship practice, confronting societies with the question of whether and how to legally recognise these new family structures and kinship ties. This is the case of same-sex couples who are parents, whose reproductive strategies and family configurations are not equally regulated and recognized in different countries. This article will examine the consequences of the lack of adjustment between legislation and public policies on family organization. This question is explored by comparing two European countries, which differ radically in their approach to regulating ART and recognising same-sex family configurations: namely, Italy and Belgium. The ethnographic gaze will show that the way in which both countries regulate reproductive practices and recognise kinship ties contains ambiguities and contradictions, although to a different extent. We can then talk of reproductive tactics and kinning processes.


Keywords: Same-sex families; Belgium; Italy; anthropology of reproduction; reproductive and parenting rights; ARTs.

  1. Arcygay, Modidi, Istituto Superiore di Sanità (2006). Survey nazionale su stato di salute, comportamenti protettivi e percezione del rischio HIV nella popolazione omo-bisessuale. Rapporto di ricerca, Roma.
  2. Arend-Chevron C. (2002). La loi du 13 février 2003 ouvrant le mariage à des per-sonnes de même sexe. Courrier hebdomadaire du CRISP, 1780(35): 5-41.
  3. Borghs P., Eeckhout B. (2010). LGB Rights in Belgium, 1999-2007: A historical Survey of a Velvet Revolution. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 24(1): 1-28.
  4. Corbisiero F., Monaco S. (2013). Città arcobaleno. Politiche, servizi e spazi Lgbt nell’Europa dell’uguaglianza sociale. In: Corbisiero F., ed., Comunità omoses-suali. Le scienze sociali sulla popolazione LGBT. Milano: FrancoAngeli, pp. 263-283.
  5. de Briey L., Pitseys J. (2007). L’homoparentalité et la fonction du droit. Revue Phi-losophique de Louvain, 105(1-2): 77-106.
  6. Courduriès J., Herbrand C. (2014). Gender, kinship and assisted reproductive tech-nologies: future directions after 30 years of research. Enfances Familles Géné-rations, Vol. 21 http://journals.openedition.org/efg/488, (Last access : 19/03/2018).
  7. Culley L., Hudson N., Van Rooij F., eds. (2009). Marginalized Reproduction: Eth-nicity, Infertility and Reproductive Technologies. London: Earthscan.
  8. D’amore S., Scali T. (2015). Same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption: Socio-political context of the rights of gay and lesbian people in Belgium. Psychology of Sexualities Review, 6(1): 81-98.
  9. Debry J.M. (2010). Le don de sperme en Belgique: entre loi et pratique. Basic and Clinical Andrology, 20(1): 20-24.
  10. De Certeau M. (1990). L’invention du quotidien. 1. Art de faire. Paris: Gallimard.
  11. Di Nicola P. (2016). Babies are not Born under a Cabbage Leaf. Italian Sociologi-cal Review, 6(2): 293-308.
  12. Fassin E. (2002). La nature de la maternité. Pour une anthropologie de la reproduc-tion. Journal des anthropologues, 88-89: 103-122.
  13. Fonseca C. (2011). The De-Kinning of Birthmothers. Reflections on Maternity and Being Human. Vibrant – Virtual Brazilian Anthropology, 8(2): 307-339.
  14. Ginsburg F.D., Rapp R., eds. (1995). Conceiving the New World Order: The Global Politics of Reproduction. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  15. Goffman E. (1975). Stigmate. Les usages sociaux des handicaps. Paris: Les Édi-tions de Minuit. [Ed. orig. 1963]
  16. Grilli S. (2014). Scelte di filiazione e nuove relazionalità. Riflessioni a margine di una ricerca sull’omogenitorialità in Italia. Voci. Annuale di Scienze umane, 11: 24-42.
  17. Herbrand C. (2006). L’adoption par les couples de même sexe. Courrier hebdoma-daire du CRISP, 1911-1912(6): 5-72.
  18. Herbrand C. (2012). La filiation à l’épreuve de la présomption de «paternité» pour les couples de même sexe: questionnements et perspectives à partir du cas belge. Droit et Société, 82 (3): 689-712.
  19. Howell S. (2006). The kinning of foreigners. Transnational Adoption in a Global Perspective. New York/Oxford: Berghahn.
  20. Kröger T. (2001). Comparative Research on Social Care: The State of the Art. Lu-xembourg: European Communities.
  21. Lombardi L. (2016). Reproductive technology in Italy between gender policy and inequality. Can we speak of “social infertility”? ABOUT GENDER. Internatio-nal Gender Study, 5-9: 1-20.
  22. Lombardi L., De Zordo S., eds. (2013). La procreazione medicalmente assistita e le sue sfide. Generi, tecnologie e disuguaglianze. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  23. Massager N. (2017). Gestation pour autrui, uniparenté et coparentalité en droit belge. In: Massager N., Gallus N., eds., Procréation médicalment assistée et gestation pour autrui. Regards croisés du droit et de la pratique médicale. Centre de droit privé - Unité de droit familial: 153-178.
  24. Roca i Escoda M., Gallus N. (2012). Ouverture du mariage aux homosexuel·le·s en Espagne et en Belgique: une mise en question du caractère hétérosexué du droit?. Nouvelles Questions Féministes, 31-1: 44-59.
  25. Ruspini E., Luciano S. (2010). Nuovi genitori. Roma: Carrocci.
  26. Saraceno C. (2012). Coppie e famiglie, non è questione di natura. Milano: Feltri-nelli.
  27. Saraceno C., Naldini M. (2013). Sociologia della famiglia, Bologna: Il Mulino.
  28. Sosson J. (2017). Filiation après procréation médicalement assistée et comaternité: principes et pièges. In: Massager N., Gallus N., eds., Procréation médicalment assistée et gestation pour autrui. Regards croisés du droit et de la pratique médicale. Centre de droit privé - Unité de droit familial: 125-152.
  29. Squifflet A. (2017). Gamètes, gonades, embryons: du matériel corporel humain comme un autre? In: Massager N., Gallus N., eds., Procréation médicalment assistée et gestation pour autrui. Regards croisés du droit et de la pratique médicale. Centre de droit privé - Unité de droit familial: 33-74.
  30. Santosuosso F. (2004). La procreazione medicalmente assistita. Commento alla Legge 19 febbraio 2004, n.40. Milano: Giuffrè.
  31. Weber F. (2005). Le sang, le nom, le quotidien. Une sociologie de la parenté pra-tique. La Courneuve: Editions Aux lieux d’être.

Alice Sophie Sarcinelli, in "SALUTE E SOCIETÀ" 2/2018, pp. 90-105, DOI:10.3280/SES2018-002007

   

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association associazione indipendente e no profit per facilitare l'accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche